Such a shame that http://www.c4em.org.uk haven’t been able to amass a similar amount of signatories yet, even just to be able to show the amount of people in the UK who are in support of equal marriage!

Then again, the chances are this is because equality advocates never seem to have the same amount of money at their disposal when compared to the Church and right wing Muppets who are still stuck in the 50’s!

I really don’t understand how equality threatens anyone or how anyone can have the mindset to try and block it.

Perhaps the money going to pay for misleading adverts could be diverted to a fund to pay for the counseling of their own issues.

Elizabeth Taylor was much married, she was however a true champion of LGBT rights and did a very great deal for people suffering with AIDS. She does not deserve to be placed in the company of homophobes because she was the furthest thing from being one.

The controversial ComRes poll itself asked respondents whether they agreed with the statement: “Marriage should continue to be defined as a life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman”.

Life-long commitment? Well, why doesn’t it mention the heterosexual serial adulterers and their serial marriages? If there’s any detriment to marriages, its them, not gay couples having a civil marriage. If anything, we’ll strengthen marriage. It’s good for the country and good for the economy.

I believe C4EM are also working on a video but not sure if that’s in tandem with StonewallUK’s. Videos in support of equal marriage are vital Man of them helped win marriage equality in several American states. New York was a brilliant example. Stonewall needs to engage our straight celebrities, have them participate, every bit helps, especially straight allies.

Firstly, it’s factually inaccurate. If this was an advert campaigning for the end and criminalisation of divorces and adultery and marriage indeed being a “life-long exclusive commitment between a man and a woman” then there would be no issue on that front.

Secondly, it’s misleading in the sense that the question posed to those “surveryed” was flawed, the details of which can be found on here on previous articles. How can a question be used to oppose something when the question neither asks “Do you oppose” or mentions the group the question is supposed to oppose?

I’m not discussing the validity of the poll, that’s been done already. But their article clearly states “70% of people* say keep marriage as it is”. If this country permits divorce/adultery and does not punish those who take part in either activity then marriage cannot be defined as a life-long commitment. Therefore their article(and the poll) is not just factually inaccurate, but an outright lie, and that’s not down to the polling company, but the company that wrote this article. Nowhere in law does it state once a couple are married then that’s it, they’re committed until they die.

I have posted a story explaining in detail why the methodology to this poll has been demonstrated to be dubious, elsewhere in these comments. That story precedes the C4M use of the poll. Clearly you have chosen not to read the story, “me” … I suggest you do.

If this forum is not a legitimate forum to discuss whether the poll is dubious or not (which I dispute and will address in a moment) then it would also be inappropriate for you to specifically ask (and I quote) “I didnt know poll was officialy discredited prior C4M campaign. Can you post the link to an official investigation” – which clearly sounds like you discussing the validity of the poll on this very forum.

Its not my findings, but the findings of an eminent statistician, various investigative journalists and an eminent lawyer. I have read their comments and find them convincing – perhaps you can demonstrate the validity of the poll and how you came to determine that the methodology was unbiased?

Personally, I think it is inappropriate to use rhetoric on these comments when you can not give evidence to sustain your position “me”, which is precisely what you are doing.

This comments forum is about the misleading of the C4M, which is due to the dubious poll – it is

Perhaps you, now believe it is an inappropriate place (despite having tried to discuss it – with mere fluff and rhetoric) because you now can not respond to the detailed facts that have been supplied and can not give any evidence to substantiate your rhetoric, so you thrown a tantrum, teddy’s go out of the pram, and suddenly you decide it is “not an appropriate arena to discuss the poll” despite having been doing entirely this yourself until you lost your temper?

Call me cynical, but I think I detect an significant element of hypocracy in your comments. Ah, what a surprise you are trying to defend the C4M – as they say, birds of a feather flock together.

The poll and its findings were not officially discredited, so C4M wasn’t misleading when referring to it. It is correct that only mixed sex couple can marry and it is also correct that at the marriage ceremony they pledge ‘ from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.’

Marriage remains the same for opposite sex couples whether or not same sex couples are also allowed civil marriages, they are deliberately misleading people to think that opposite sex marriages will be changed, they will not.

I’m all for equal marriage, but that’s not the issue here. What we discussing here is whether the ad breached advertising standards, I don’t thinks so since it accurately reported poll’s finding.The poll wasn’t discredited therefore they had every right to use it in their ad

The fact that Com.res was commissioned by Catholic Voices proves the poll was biased in their favour. Catholics are not the majority opinion in the UK and never will be. They are a minority too and always will be. As for the married for life statement, why didn’t it address the heterosexual adulterers and their serial marriages and divorces. Why did it choose to make mention of them, exclude them, the real threat to marriage, both religious and civil, long before same-sex marriage were a reality? Marriage doesn’t guarantee a life-time commitment even though it is the ideal. Heterosexuals have been changing the institution of marriage for hundreds of years and will continue to do so. Access to civil marriage by gay couples isn’t going to change heterosexuals’ ability to marry, commit adultery or divorce and they’ve been doing a great job of that for centuries without our help. thank you very much.

The methodology of the poll was such as to be unable to demonstrate that it was not biased and suggestive that it would be targetted by those who felt strongly in a particular direction – rendering it a void and bogus poll in terms of opinion measuring.

Also, when same-sex marriage is legalised, the statement that they agreed to will still be true, it just won’t be the entire definition.

The statement, the way it’s written, sounds as if it’s asking whether it should be changed to NOT include men and women, or to NOT be lifelong/exclusive, as opposed to the TRUE context. Of course people will say yes, it should continue to be defined like that.

It’s possible that the 70% interpreted the statement in this way and that’s why an ASA complaint is justified.

Exactly. Heterosexuals are the ones who commit adultery and divorce without any input from us. They will continue to do it even if we are allowed to marry. The C4M hate group refuses to acknowledge it or address it if they care so much about marriage as a life-time commitment. Heterosexuals are the ones who changed (redefined) marriage, always have and always will, not us. If anything C4M needs to concentrate its efforts on saving hetero marriages as well as the serial adultery and divorce.

Every piece of evidence mentioned about the bias, problematic methodology and concerns about this poll that have been mentioned on here were reported on PN and elsewhere prior to the C4M advertisement being released. You have been told this on this comments page. Your contention therefore that this has all come to light after the advertisement campaign began is wrong (and deceptive) – strange that you are supporting C4M and being deceptive … what a bed fellow you keep …

Which regulatory body officially discredits polls? Please explain – or are you setting goalposts that are impossible to reach because you know the facts support the argument you are trying to defeat with mere rhetoric (your facts do not stack up – oh wait, you havent proposed any facts, just rhetoric – whereas I and others have shown you examples of how the poll has been discredited and you continue to debate in this forum that you deem “inappropriate” and set goalposts that you know are impossible to fill because there is no such organisation. Try again troll.

1) Explain which regulatory body is used to discredit opinion polls (as he/she seems to suggest should happen.
2) Supply any evidence to support his/her rhetoric
3) Explain why he/she continues to take part in this debate which they claim is an “inappropriate” arena to discuss the subject matter of the story (although only after facts repudiating their rhetoric were given)
4) Justify how their claim to support equal marriage fits with their apparent support of the C4M

Could it be that “me” is all fluff and no substance and full of deceit?

I believe the Information Commissioner is looking into allegations that some people have seen their name on the petition and did not sign it, and when they approached the C4M to remove their details, this was refused. That (to my mind) is a clear breach of the Data Protection Act. As far as I can tell I do not appear on the petition, but I would encourage anyone who finds themselves on the petition to ask the C4M to remove it AND complain to the Information Commissioner:http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/data_protection.aspx

Interestingly, if you pick a name off C4M’s signatories and search for it, Google sometimes returns other petitions by the same people behind C4M – certain names appear on a number of petitions, to do with anti-abortion, Scotland for Marriage, etc.

Might be worth seeing if they actually exist, particularly the clergy-like signatures.

There’s such a thing as purchasing mailing lists, so it wouldn’t surprise me if C4M did just that. Plus, internet providers allow serveral accounts under one account holder. What’s to stop that person using all accounts and signing the petition using a bogus name and what about people who have more than one computer. The possibilities of pollster fraud are endless.

On days off (some of us have to work shifts, so get days off in the week instead). Also on reduced hours on return given how long I have been recovering from being unwell – gradually building them up. Thank you for the concern.

Bullying .. where – pointing out facts is what I am doing?

If you want to debate deal in facts … seems some can’t, notably the anti-gay militants who are obsessed by gay websites – such an odd thing that.

NOT That I’m calling C4M a bunch of lying, hypocritical wankers, but if you SHOULD happen to go to their site, make sure they don’t leave a load of cookies on your system, as I found they had when I went to make sure MY name wasn’t on their misleading piece of crap!!

I have just complained to the ASA. I urge others to do so. Make sure you explain what part of the advert caused you offence or you found to be misleading. The 70% statistic is a good start. Explain clearly why it did and is. Eg. The advert is offensive as it is designed to gain support for a campaign opposing equal rights for LGBT people. It is misleading as 6 polls over last few years including 2012 You-Gov poll show a majority of people support same sex marriage by a margin of between 10 and 20%. Take the opportunity to tell them what course of action you feel the ASA should take and justify it. Eg. They should not be allowed to use the statistic in promoting their campaign and they should have to make it clear they are campaigning against same sex couples having the right to get married.

I’ve said it time and time again, but reading the bit of the article that the picture shows has made me angry. Calling marriage a ‘great national institution’ is so grossly incorrect and stupid that I had to read it a few times before I actually conceded that I’d read it correctly. Marriage is not a ‘national institution’, it is a worldwide rite that has changed and evolved as much with language and culture. Christianity does not own marriage – and it never has. To say that politicians are ‘meddling’ is like saying changing stamp prices is meddling. Stamp prices change to reflect the current economic climate, marriage changes to reflect the current social climate. I may be wrong, but I might be right in saying that this isn’t ‘changing marriage’, but rather ‘changing marriage BACK’. It’s a bully crying because they’re being made to give the toy back that they stole.

I would love it if they’d look into all the people whose wedding photographs are on that banner and see just how many remained or remain in a ‘lifelong exclusive commitment.’ I think it’s safe to bet that it won’t be all of them (given the UK’s present divorce rates).

As a subscriber to Country Life I must say I am absolutely shocked that a magazine that is supposed to feature country issues and pursuits is placing political adverts in it’s pages. I don’t think this issue is anything to do with the countryside- why is it appearing in this sort of magazine? I have been a subscriber for years and I don’t recall ever seeing a political advert of this type in Country Life before. it’s disgraceful. What do other subscribers think?

I agree. Could it possibly be that Country Life supports C4M or maybe its more about the nice piece of change it gets for printing it regardless of who it offends? Either way, I’d contact the editor for an explanation indicating that you and others might well cancel your subscription. I wouldn’t mind betting the response will be that what it accepts as advertisements, do not necessarily reflect the views of Country Life, short of explaining why it would even consider an advertisement that has nothing to do with the content of the magazine. I can’t for a minute believe that Country Life isn’t aware of the implications or what C4M represents. I wonder what the religious affiliation is of the editor, assuming he or she has any?

I have been a reader / buyer of Country Life for over 30 years, but I have left a message on their facebook page to say how disgusted I am at their pandering to bigots. They have lost my readership. The damn cheek of County Life to insult the many gay people who have been loyal readers over decades. Talk about shoot yourself in the foot! That’s one advert that will cost them dear.

Its not specifically the issue on equalising of marriage and DElia that I found (although I do recall reading in the last week or so that she intends campaigning against same sex partners marrying), this article does show she itends to campaign against “militant secularism” though:

I agree with keeping hetrosexual marriages as they are – what has the Coalition for Marriage got to fear? All we are asking is for equality. As for where they got that 70% figure from, then all I can say is that there are lies, dammed lies and there are statistics.

then, assuming a majority agreement, use this to state that the majority of the country want to see capital punishment reintroduced the there is no problem there? At no point has my question asked about capital punishment but the majority agreed with the statement about prison sentences so therefore it would be correct, in your view, for me and others to use this to campaign for the killing of criminals?